چکیده :
چکیده
عینالقضات، در جایگاه یک مسلمان موحد، خداوند را خالق و مبدأ کل و ابلیس را از آفریدههای او میداند.
او بیشتر از همان ابلیسی سخن میگوید که در ادیان توحیدی، مخصوصاً دین اسلام مطرح است؛ یعنی ابلیسِ نافرمان متکبر، دشمنِ خدا و بدخواهِ نوع بشر؛ اما آنگاه که سخن او حال‌وهوای شطح و طامات به خود میگیرد، از ابلیس، جانبداری و تنزیه و تقدیس می‌کند.
نگاه او، در چنین مواردی، با معتقدات اسلامی و صریح آیات قرآن و روایات همخوانی ندارد.
عینالقضات در ارائۀ این اندیشه از صوفیان مدافع ابلیس چون حسن بصری، حلّاج و احمد غزالی و اندیشۀ گنوسی و عرفان قبالای یهود و برخی اندیشههای ایران باستان تأثیر پذیرفته است.
همچنین میان دیدگاه عینالقضات در دفاع از ابلیس و احیاناً تقدیس او با اندیشههای شیطانپرستی (از دیرباز تا کنون)، وجوه مشترک و جنبههای تمایزی وجود دارد.
وجه مشترک، تلقی مثبت و جانبدارانه از ابلیس است؛ اما تفاوت را باید در موضوعاتی مانند «معیار ارزیابی منزلت ابلیس»، «جایگاه ابلیس در عالم و نسبت او با خدا و انسان» و «ابلیس، موضوع سجده بر آدم و میوه ممنوعه» جستجو کرد.
معیار ارزشگذاری منزلت خاصی که عینالقضات برای ابلیس قائل است ـ به گمان او ـ بندگی، تقرب و عشق ابلیس در بارگاه الهی است، نه تقابل ابلیس با خداوند.
بر این پایه، ابلیسِ عینالقضات موحّد است و در توحید بر همه سبقت میگیرد؛ اما ابلیسِ شیطانپرستان این کمالات را ندارد و همواره با نیروهای خیر و خدای واحد مطلق تضادّ و تقابل دارد.
او ارزش خود را مرهون تکبّر، سرکشی، گستاخی و نافرمانی در مقابل خداوند میداند؛ چنانکه میتواند بر مسند خدا بنشیند و در معرض پرستش قرار گیرد و خود به‌وجودآورندۀ دینِ شیطانی شود.
چکیده [english]
the good and evil forces have been considered as the two magnets of human life.
by establishing civilizations and cultures, the advent of opposite forces in the human being life paved the way for proposing various ideas and opinions, particularly ideas on the philosophy of creation and existence of a creator and worshipping the creator.
since human being is a two-dimensional creature (spiritual and physical), he needs for worshiping as one of his divine nature's requirements.
hence he sought a creator to worship because of his nature.
worship in its proper form is praising of the only lord.
however, in case of inaccessibility to divine teachings and religions or in the case of noncompliance with these teachings and thoughts, its disgrace form is appeared in the shape of tendency toward worshipping the assumed gods or appearance of satanism; there is a tendency to exonerating and probably sanctification of the satan in sufism that is a islamic group with some teachings rooted in other groups ideas and rituals.
we see this tendency in some of the sufism works.
einolgozat hamadani is in the rank of the sufis that in spite of belief in islam and monotheism and adherence of islamic consideration of the satan.
he sometimes has a vision accompanied by exonerating and sanctification on the satan and writes incoherently about the satan according to the necessities of the sufism atmosphere.
due to highlighting this tendency in some of his works and likelihood of misinterpretation on satanism, this article tries to respond the following questions:
a-what are the similarities and difference between the einolgozat opinions on the satan and the satanism viewpoints from the roots, criteria for evaluation of the place of satan and type of beliefs? b-how einolgozat and satanists justify the place of the satan in the world and his relationship with god and man?
the obeisance resulted from fear or worshipping the satan was common since beginning of human life in different shapes; such as worshipping jinn among the arabs and worshipping of the evil souls or satan in other parts of the world including india, tibet and mongolia (noss, 2011: 224).
the discoveries in south america depict that some primary tribes worshipped the satan.
animism is another aspect of satanism among primitive tribes (noss, 2011:20).
dualism is one of the roots of satanism.
the zoroastrian texts are ambiguous on the responsibility of ahouramazda in creating the evil soul and it is unknown that how the evil soul has been created with ahouramazada since beginning of creation or it has been created later (noss, 2010: 454).
in islamic viewpoint, satan was created by the god and it is not an independent force before the god.
einolgozat considers the satan as manifestation of the trait of misguide of the god (hamadani, 2008: 232; ibid: 227).
ambiguity in zoroastrian teachings provided a context for advent of trinity ideology and constituting groups such as genism, yazidieh and dorzovieh that the traces of satanism can be found in them.
post-medieval satanism has a direct relationship with sorcery, so that it is assigned to the satan and it is also influenced by the greeks, romans, egyptians and babylon beliefs and also affected by the people with ancient civilization who tended toward sorcery.
thus, satanism was publicized after this period due belief in sorcery.
the traces of assigning sorcery to the satan can be found in einolgozat speeches.
however, he considers this issue from different perspective as a result of mystical contemplation of the story of adam and eve.
it means that the relationship between adam and prohibited fruit was rooted in goodness and the satan brought hardship and defects (hamadani, 2008:313).
satanism is considered as originated from kabbalah that is a combination of non-jewish groups’ beliefs and ideas, but it distances from the jewish mysticism.
tendency toward sorcery and mixing with non-jewish mysticism caused kabbalah to lose its spiritual aspect and move to materiality and superstitions realm gradually.
kabbalah moved the medieval man toward satanism for gradual combining with forbidden heresy.
the contemporary satanism mostly denies existence of the satan as the agent of misleading and loses this place as the human satanic aspect.
in einolgozat opinion, where he defeats the satan, there is a distinction between the human being and the satan and the latter gains real entity in this regard (hamadani, 2008).
although, his defense of the satan is similar to the satanism ideals somehow, but it is not meant defeating the ideas and beliefs that lead to satanism; since the place of the god as the only lord and creator of the universe is still highlighted; the sufis who defeat the satan consider him as unique.
in satanists opinions, the satan, as the root of any evil conduct, does not deny the god unity; the ancient satanists considered the god as the only creator of goodness and they did not accept his intervention in evil conducts.
in contemporary satanists opinion, the satan succeeds the god.
therefore, einolgozat introduces the satan as in charge of conducting the divine orders emphasizing the supreme legitimacy of the god and they do not accept servitude of the satan (hamadani, 2008, v.3:322).
in conclusion, it can be concluded that a)the opinions of einolgozat such as considering wrongdoing as the will of god, sanctification of the satan, believing in his beneficence in inviting adam toward the forbidden tree and etc.
are influenced by jewish ideas.
b) defeating the satan approximates einolgozat opinions to the gnostic beliefs.
c) considering the outstanding place for the satan by einolgozat is due to his closeness and loving of the god in the divine court, which it is not being in contrary to the god.
the valuation of the satan among the satanists is the consequence of proud and disobedience before the god.
d) there is a duality on the issue of the satan in einolgozat works; first the accursed satan appears and then he becomes the loser lover; since einolgozat speaks in normal condition, so the satan is normal for him, when he is placed in paradoxical condition, the satan is appeared differently and exalted.
e) in his viewpoint, satanism is blamed since divinity only belongs to the god and the satan is his creature and he is under his will and the satan only overcomes on the misled people.